no - Amendment to the Contract, to avoid Breech, is the agreement b/w both parties signing off.
NO Match for Harriman/Schmidt
- Thread starter Str8 Shots
- Start date
no - Amendment to the Contract, to avoid Breech, is the agreement b/w both parties signing off.
Of course they are going to play eventually. This is complete lunacy!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
sorry for the derail - but Lou Reed just died @ 71
if Lou only had people that knew better than he how he should behave, he might have made it to 72.
RIP Lou
How did he make it to 71?
How is Keith Richards still with us?
Ginger Baker?
Forget all this clean living.
What did you just say?
Actually, my son would benefit from this, he already knows not to act like Earl Stickland :smile: , could use a few more examples of what not to do, or on what to do if they can play a match well despite not liking each other.
Honestly, from listening from both John and Danny commentate I never would have taken them to have grating personalities or being unstable and going nuts on people for small things. After getting a very odd PM on here from Danny, I can see what's up with him though.
Last edited:
Read and click my sig line that says RIP to Lou Reed, which I changed about an hour ago. I grew up with Lou Reed.
i just called my pool hall & asked them to play it, in honor. i shoot to this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KaWSOlASWc
You get it; others don't. Thanks for chiming in. :smile:
Johnny is not allowed out until he learns to play right.
Johnny has already promised (in writing) to play right.
But we don't trust Johnny.
We know better than Johnny.
We will let you know when we feel its safe to let Johnny out to play
I am not lambasting anyone. I am trying to point out that this woman is trying to do good in the pool world. Because people are upset at the decision made, they are attacking her, her writing skills, her website, et cetera, et cetera. I think that is quite sad, and as such, I'm stating my opinion. If that's lambasting to you, then so be it, Steve.
And as far as websites go, the Str8-Shot website can give most pool websites the orange crush from the ones I have visited. Sheesh!
Love that song! :lovies:
That's awesome that your teaching your kid good behaviors.
I'm sure what he will see watching Danny and John play is mild compared to what he sees on tv or at school everyday.
sorry, i've been singing & holding homage....
if you have need to CHANGE a contract, you can AMEND it, to suit new needs. and in order to do so, you either STRIKE said CLAUSE & both parties initial.
OR.
you ADD a NEW CLAUSE/AMENDMENT & both parties initial.
then it's legally binding & no BREECH.
PS - JAM, i caught that Scrabble faux-pas. don't tell Spider!
Because I'm a illustrative person when I write. That's what I do.
If people were voicing their disagreement, that is fine, but the manner in which they are voicing their disagreement -- criticizing her website, stating that she's ruining the careers of pro players -- I think it is in poor taste.
Look, you know that I am an action enthusiast to the nth degree.
I do believe, however, that pool needs a fresh contribution, someone to infuse some new blood, some innovative ideas, some money.
This organization sends supplies to our troops overseas for free, and that's not all they do. That is just one I am aware of.
Because of this one damn match, all the good that this organization is doing with charity events, sponsorship if juniors, amateurs, aspiring pros, and pros, just to name a few at the time of this writing, it seems like all the good goes out the window. Everyone wants to put down this brand-new organization because the organization doesn't want to see a player become unraveled in a match that they are associated with.
Obviously, I am in support of anything positive they are doing for the Juniors. My criticism of her decision in this case is distinct from my praise for their contributions to BEF.
Regarding the website, I'm trying to get information. I am a scientist. Don't confuse my analytical search for facts as criticism.
Is this a charitable organization or a for-profit business? If the former, they all must have mission statements.
An organization must have one or more qualifying exempt purposes in order to be eligible for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. The exempt purpose should be embodied in a mission statement, which may be found in an organization’s bylaws and/or its articles of incorporation.
Regarding the website, I'm trying to get information. I am a scientist. Don't confuse my analytical search for facts as criticism.
Is this a charitable organization or a for-profit business? If the former, they all must have mission statements.
An organization must have one or more qualifying exempt purposes in order to be eligible for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. The exempt purpose should be embodied in a mission statement, which may be found in an organization’s bylaws and/or its articles of incorporation.
She was nice enough to leave her phone number for anyone to call who had questions about the organization. When time allows, if these are burning questions that you want to have answered, maybe you can give her a ring and find out more.
I'm not sure whether she's a charitable organization or a for-profit business has anything to do with her stance on the John v. Danny match, but maybe if she can satisfy your curiosity about her company's legal business standing, that will take care of one concern. :smile: